Convicted Driver Insurance

Compare quotes from leading covicted driver insurance specialists in the UK

Get Quotes

Simple questions - Do i have to declare conviction to insurers?

bilabonic

Well-known member
Hi

Just had my license back after 3 year ban (dr10 in 2012, dr30 in 2017).

Do i have to declare the older ban to insurers?



Also it states that i now have a Full Driving license but it is for 3 years, valid from 02 Nov 2009 - Valid to 01 Nov 2022.
Do i have to mention this at all?

Plus is the insurer link/partnership on here worth trying as well as the comparison sites?

ThanksBan1 DR10.JPG
 

Jamdpa

Well-known member
Hi

Just had my license back after 3 year ban (dr10 in 2012, dr30 in 2017).

Do i have to declare the older ban to insurers?



Also it states that i now have a Full Driving license but it is for 3 years, valid from 02 Nov 2009 - Valid to 01 Nov 2022.
Do i have to mention this at all?

Plus is the insurer link/partnership on here worth trying as well as the comparison sites?

ThanksView attachment 65
Yes you do to both questions
 

bilabonic

Well-known member
Yes you do to both questions
Well i just just one quote online, put in it then asked if i had anfy convictions withing the the last five year.

My first conviction was the DR10 on 17th December 2012 + 5 years =17th December 2017, so why do i need to declare it?

It did have the option of selecting a 3 year restricted license as well.

So why do i have to declare a spent conviction?

Cheers
 

bilabonic

Well-known member
You dont have to declare the DR10 as it is spent, only the DR30.
Thanks.

What do i put for my ban length? It was 36 months originally but now it states 2 years, 3 months, 22d ays on the DVLA site.

All the sites are asking for it in months, do i put in 27 or 28 months
 

Jamdpa

Well-known member
Well i just just one quote online, put in it then asked if i had anfy convictions withing the the last five year.

My first conviction was the DR10 on 17th December 2012 + 5 years =17th December 2017, so why do i need to declare it?

It did have the option of selecting a 3 year restricted license as well.

So why do i have to declare a spent conviction?

Cheers
You said just got it back after a 3 yr ban so that puts you with the 5 years .. that's why I said yes to both
 

price1367

TTC Group
The relevant time for convictions being spent is from the date of conviction, so the first one does NOT have to be declared.
HOWEVER, it does not take a genius to work out when you declare a DR30, coupled with a 28 month ban that you either had a nasty RTC, (but you would have to had declared that) and if not, you had a second conviction within the previous 10 years - which is now spent.
 

bilabonic

Well-known member
The relevant time for convictions being spent is from the date of conviction, so the first one does NOT have to be declared.
HOWEVER, it does not take a genius to work out when you declare a DR30, coupled with a 28 month ban that you either had a nasty RTC, (but you would have to had declared that) and if not, you had a second conviction within the previous 10 years - which is now spent.
I did not have any RTC? I have had 2 bans withing 10 and had the mandatory 36 months, which was reduced to a 28 month ban by doing the course.

I'm suspicious of some insures as they ask for length of ban, i can not put in the exact amount time, i have to round up or down.
My fine amount was £246, but it is set by a drop down menu in stages of fifties , i put in selected £250.

I plan on getting a quote then get them to confirm it's ok via email so i have documented evidence in the event of a claim or any other matter.

I had a quote through - https://www.mustard.co.uk/

Who are owned by Vast Visibility - https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/blog/2007/08/who-owns-your-insurer.html

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

I have only done one quote which was recommended by a friend.


656 1.JPG
 
Last edited:

price1367

TTC Group
What I was saying was that when you tell the insurance company you had a 28 month ban for failing to provide, and there is no RTC to disclose, then the insurance company will be able to deduce that you must have had a previous in the past 10 years to get that length of ban.
 

bilabonic

Well-known member
What I was saying was that when you tell the insurance company you had a 28 month ban for failing to provide, and there is no RTC to disclose, then the insurance company will be able to deduce that you must have had a previous in the past 10 years to get that length of ban.
I was always told and informed that you get mandatory 3 year ban if caught twice in 10 years. My previous was a DR10 in 2012, that is what got me the 3 year ban(reduced to 28 as they allowed me to do the course).
I don't understand why you are mentioning an RTA all the time?

The insurance company will be able to deduce that you must have had a previous in the past 10 years, yes i did, a DR10 in 2012.
 

price1367

TTC Group
Bilabonic, you are not understanding what I am trying to explain.
Let me have another go.....
Your first conviction is spent and you do not have to disclose it. If the insurance company knew about it, it could affect your premium so that is good that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act protects you from old disclosures.
BUT
when you tell them about the second conviction (the only one you disclose) and say “I have one conviction, it was for failing to supply and I got a 28 month ban.” they will realise that one of 2 things have happened to you.
EITHER you had a nasty accident which justified 28 months for failing to supply (which they know you haven’t because under the question “have you had any accidents in the past 3 years?” You put “No”
OR you got 28 months because you had a previous conviction in the previous 10 years, attracting the mandatory 3 year ban which you reduced with a DDRS course.
SO, although your first conviction is spent and you do not have to tell insurance companies about it, they will be aware that you must have another conviction for a drink driving offence in the 10 years before your first one.
you would never prove that they did take this first conviction into account, but it may well be that they would and adjust the premium accordingly.
has that helped explain why I have talked about road traffic collision - it was about you NOT having one, not that you had one!
 
Top